It is estimated that in the UK, Ministers make some 3,800 public
appointments every year to the boards of executive non departmental
public bodies. With the growth in regulation and inspection, some of
the bigger regulators and senior public appointments wield significant
political power. Up to now, these top appointments have been made
without any parliamentary input or scrutiny. That is all now changing.

In July 2007, the Brown government laid out its agenda for
constitutional reform. One of its proposals was to introduce the right
for parliamentary select committees to hold pre-appointment hearings
for certain high-profile public appointments. In its March 2008 white
paper “Governance of Britain,” the government decided to proceed with
its plans for Parliament to hold hearings “on a pilot basis.”

The stated rationale for introducing pre-appointment hearings is
that they would serve to protect the public’s rights and interests by
adding transparency to the appointments process. However, Parliament
would not be given a veto over appointments; the final decision remains
in the hands of the Secretary of State. The government and Liaison
Committee agreed that the hearings should focus on the candidates’
professional competence and personal independence rather than their
private lives.

The broader aim of the study is to establish what value
parliamentary pre-appointment scrutiny hearings would add to the public
appointments process. In other words, do pre-appointment hearings hold
power accountable and do they enhance the rights and responsibilities
of the citizen? Therefore, the study will aim to examine whether
pre-appointment hearings are a good way of checking the executive’s
powers in a Westminster system. It also asks whether the select
committees have been given sufficient powers to carry out their duties
in scrutinising public appointments.

The hopes and fears of the advocates and opponents of
pre-appointments can be tested by addressing the following research
questions: (1) What value is added to public appointments; (2) What are
the risks of pre-appointment scrutiny hearings; (3) What happens when a
Select Committee issues an adverse report; (4) What are the lessons
from these pilots.

The government and the Liaison Committee agreed to a list of 60
posts which might be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny hearings. As
of 31 August 2009, 14 pre-appointment hearings have taken place. The
appointment (or reappointment) processes for these 14 posts will form
the case studies for this research project. The study uses three main
research methods: (1) examination of official literature, including
committee reports, transcripts of hearings, the job advertisement and
the recruitment pack; (2) interviews with those involved in each
recruitment exercise such as the executive search consultant, lead
official in the sponsoring department, the clerk and chair of the
Select Committee and the successful candidate; (3) media monitoring
using Lexis Nexis to see how much publicity the hearings receive and
whether the coverage is negative or positive.

The main output from the project will be submitted to the Liaison Committee and the Cabinet Office.
Further Reading: